Abhisit Interviewed By Al Jazeera's Hamish Macdonald

[oceano]

I think he didn't appreciate the implication that his election was illegitimate by the question about new elections.

He and his party lost the last election, PPP won.

Not that again! Thaksin puppet party got more votes. It was rather close. There are MANY parties in Thailand, which has a PARLIAMENTARY system. The smaller parties formed a coalition with Abhisit's democrats, 100 percent LEGITIMATE and common in many countries, and Abhisit became PM that way. He almost didn't. It was up to the smaller parties.

100 percent LEGITIMATE, really? after a military coup? whitout election?

I dont understand, im Italian so for us a military coup and the governament after that whitout election is not LEGITIMATE, in your country if happen is LEGITIMATE way?

Is not for flame, but sometimes i think in some country that way is perfectly LEGITIMATE and legal for remove a governament from the power.

I mean if happen in England or German or US is normal????

[Artisi]

speaking of eloquent, i unearthed this little gem

That was a perla, thanks for the laugh.

Wonder how he would go making a few rap records.

[whiterussian]

speaking of eloquent, i unearthed this little gem

2:50 minutes in!

Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!

If only I could show this to my Thai in-laws up here in CM!.

Perfect for the next village BBQ I have out in Thaksins hometown. very funky.

[shawndoc]

100 percent LEGITIMATE, really? after a military coup? whitout election?

Um, there was an election in 2007. After the coup. As has been stated a million times. There were also by-elections held in 2008 to fill seats of those removed for fraud/vote buying/whatever.

You can read all about the election and its aftermath here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

[oceano]

100 percent LEGITIMATE, really? after a military coup? whitout election?

Um, there was an election in 2007. After the coup. As has been stated a million times. There were also by-elections held in 2008 to fill seats of those removed for fraud/vote buying/whatever.

You can read all about the election and its aftermath here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

Sorry, my guilty....election i mean... people go sign, in one cubicle, which party and which persons they want to the power.

Sorry to say, i dont read all post in thaivisa, but i read many times the word" democracy", i think is like people decide, not coalition or parliament.

I dont know, i repeat, in other country, but are the people in mine that decide.

I read a lot newspaper, i remember in 2007 all they said, that is not democracy put in power one governament after a coup whitout election( people sign).

Pls dont let me go find i think you also read the news paper in 2007 and 2008 and you know that.

Ciao

[anotherpeter]

100 percent LEGITIMATE, really? after a military coup? whitout election?

Um, there was an election in 2007. After the coup. As has been stated a million times. There were also by-elections held in 2008 to fill seats of those removed for fraud/vote buying/whatever.

You can read all about the election and its aftermath here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

Sorry, my guilty....election i mean... people go sign, in one cubicle, which party and which persons they want to the power.

Sorry to say, i dont read all post in thaivisa, but i read many times the word" democracy", i think is like people decide, not coalition or parliament.

I dont know, i repeat, in other country, but are the people in mine that decide.

I read a lot newspaper, i remember in 2007 all they said, that is not democracy put in power one governament after a coup whitout election( people sign).

Pls dont let me go find i think you also read the news paper in 2007 and 2008 and you know that.

Ciao

As well as reading up on the 2007 election, you need to read up on how the democratic system in Thailand (theoretically) works.

But, basically, people vote in their area (electorate) for some one to represent them in parliament (MP). Usually the people vote for an MP because he/she is in a particular political party. The party with the majority of MPs (> 50%) get to form government. If they don't have a majority, they then need to form a coalition with other parties to form government. But what can also happen is, if the party with the most MPs can not form government, then other parties can form a coalition of > 50% of the MPs to form government without using the party with the most elected MPs.

[TAWP]

ocean>> Thanks for highlighting how people come to support the Red Shirts.

[oceano]

ocean>> Thanks for highlighting how people come to support the Red Shirts.

We can close the eyes but they have already a support of the >50 % of the people.

[yoshiwara]

ocean>> Thanks for highlighting how people come to support the Red Shirts.

We can close the eyes but they have already a support of the >50 % of the people.

Closed eyes, closed mind, X-ray vision. I'm impressed.

[monkfish]

I like the way he pats himself on the back though that's just so smug, you can tell he went to Eton one of the UK's cheapest schools.

[yoshiwara]

I like the way he pats himself on the back though that's just so smug, you can tell he went to Eton one of the UK's cheapest schools.

Mick Jagger sent his son to Eton, though not sure whether that is a plus or a minus.

[monkfish]

I like the way he pats himself on the back though that's just so smug, you can tell he went to Eton one of the UK's cheapest schools.

Mick Jagger sent his son to Eton, though not sure whether that is a plus or a minus.

Think Price Charles and his kids went there too, may be they were in the same class? Wow that must have been a hoot!

[shawndoc]

But, basically, people vote in their area (electorate) for some one to represent them in parliament (MP). Usually the people vote for an MP because he/she is in a particular political party. The party with the majority of MPs (> 50%) get to form government. If they don't have a majority, they then need to form a coalition with other parties to form government.

I don't understand why so many people seem to have a problem understanding this. Its not like this is some obscure form of government, the system is nearly identical to the UK system, and very similar to the system used in most Commonwealth Countries. By the very definition, a Prime Minister is not directly voted for by the people. If he was, he would be a President, not a Prime Minister.

Makes me wonder if people like Oceano are really this ignorant of one of the most common forms of government, or if they are just trolls looking to stir up trouble on TV.

[monkfish]

But, basically, people vote in their area (electorate) for some one to represent them in parliament (MP). Usually the people vote for an MP because he/she is in a particular political party. The party with the majority of MPs (> 50%) get to form government. If they don't have a majority, they then need to form a coalition with other parties to form government.

I don't understand why so many people seem to have a problem understanding this. Its not like this is some obscure form of government, the system is nearly identical to the UK system, and very similar to the system used in most Commonwealth Countries. By the very definition, a Prime Minister is not directly voted for by the people. If he was, he would be a President, not a Prime Minister.

Makes me wonder if people like Oceano are really this ignorant of one of the most common forms of government, or if they are just trolls looking to stir up trouble on TV.

Are you from the UK? did you vote in the last UK election?

If so did you vote for Tony Blair the PM or Norman Blackbottom your local MP?

[shawndoc]

No, I'm not from the UK. But I know enough about the UK system to know you cast your vote for the local MP, not for the PM.

So what is your point exactly?

[monkfish]

Although they only vote for there local MP decisions in most cases are based on the prospective Pm.

i.e. they vote inderectly vote for a PM and not the MP.

[shawndoc]

And how is this different from the Thai system?

[mazeltov]

And how is this different from the Thai system?

there will be no coup in the UK if you vote for candidates the army don't like.

[yoshiwara]

And how is this different from the Thai system?

there will be no coup in the UK if you vote for candidates the army don't like.

The coup did not take place as a result of an election result.

[Oldvisitor]

Succes creates jalousy - Thaksin Shinawatra

[anotherpeter]

Although they only vote for there local MP decisions in most cases are based on the prospective Pm.

i.e. they vote inderectly vote for a PM and not the MP.

If you vote for a smaller party, who are you indirectly voting for?

[yoshiwara]

Succes creates jalousy - Thaksin Shinawatra

For 500 baht you could at least buy a spell checker.

[animatic]

Succes creates jalousy - Thaksin Shinawatra

For 500 baht you could at least buy a spell checker.

:D :D

[Donnyboy]

Succes creates jalousy - Thaksin Shinawatra

For 500 baht you could at least buy a spell checker.

ouch

[clausewitz]

Does anyone think it hilarious the number of times Abhisit as opposition leader, demanded that Samak and then the next PM dissolve the house because he said the yellow shirt protests showed they were not suited to run teh governemnt , but he thinks that these red-shirt protests, with more people are no reason at all to dissolve the house. Can someone explain the logic, is it Thai specific or did he learn that at Oxford?

[Moruya]

I think he didn't appreciate the implication that his election was illegitimate by the question about new elections.

He and his party lost the last election, PPP won.

NOT so.

The PPP plus coallition parties won.

Some of those parties switched allegiance to the Dems.

[rixalex]

Does anyone think it hilarious the number of times Abhisit as opposition leader, demanded that Samak and then the next PM dissolve the house because he said the yellow shirt protests showed they were not suited to run teh governemnt ,

Are you sure it was Abhisit making those demands, and for those reasons? - do you have a link?

[ballpoint]

Does anyone think it hilarious the number of times Abhisit as opposition leader, demanded that Samak and then the next PM dissolve the house because he said the yellow shirt protests showed they were not suited to run teh governemnt , but he thinks that these red-shirt protests, with more people are no reason at all to dissolve the house. Can someone explain the logic, is it Thai specific or did he learn that at Oxford?

I find it more amusing that you don't seem to know the name of "the next PM". There were some calls for Somchai to call elections, but as noted above, you should check to see whether it was Abhisit making them. These calls did have a point though, he had clearly lost the support of the civil and military powers, and there was no way he was running a fully functioning government. Definitely not the situation that Abhisit is in - he has the full support of the police and military, and his government is still making policy statements despite the red protests. What is really hilarious though is that Somchai resisted all calls to step down, including from the PAD (remember it was only the court dissolving his party that forced him out), yet his supporters are now trying to make Abhisit do so. I liken it to a football team on the attack with a player sitting injured, but not kicking the ball out. As soon as the other team gets the ball the first team starts whining about fair play and stopping the game. Somchai had the chance to call elections. He didn't make that call, preferring to stay in power. He lost the ball. Get over it.

Edited March 24, 2010 by ballpoint

[mca]

Are you sure it was Abhisit making those demands, and for those reasons? - do you have a link?

Democrat party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva suggests the Government disband the Parliament in order to iron out the country’s problems and calls for responsibility for the strife in front of the Parliament.

In response to the commanders of the Royal Thai Armed Forces recently voicing their points of view on current political situations, Mr. Abhisit views that their action echoes their frustration with the public administration of Prime Minister and Defense Minister Somchai Wongsawat, which has shown no capabilities in solving the country’s problems.

Mr. Abhisit points out that the premier’s resignation is not the best way out. He suggests that the Government opt in one of three proposals, including political pole shift, national government establishment, and the best solution, Parliament dissolution.

As of now, Mr. Abhisit advises the Government to show its responsibility for the deaths and injuries from the dispersal of PAD protesters.

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255110170012

[SpoliaOpima]

He would have been a good Leader if he'd only done it through election, now some military puppet.

As opposed to the two previous Thaksin puppets, who got there by the same election process as Abhisit.

Precisely. The reds only want 'democracy' when it goes their way.